Why would you have left FAF?

@broker said in Why would you have left FAF?:

@blackyps the game hasn't changed in any way.

At this point you are oversimplifying so much that you are making a fool of yourself.

Relaxed playing with a beer in your hand is just not what is easily possible in RTS. It's ok to want that, and I think that is precisely the reason why RTS will never be a genre for the masses, but FAF is about delivering a good RTS experience, so it will always be stressful to play well.

@thomashiatt not necessary. I understand that labor costs are important. so my suggestions are to minimize them.

@blackyps I suggested making two sets. for different players. In my proposal, labor costs are minimal. I understand it.

And so the game will remain a game of nerds. it's a pity.
although nothing prevents you from doing an experiment.
except for the desire and fear that now no one will play with nerds if there is an alternative)))

I only understood half of what you wrote, but everybody is encouraged to make a mod to produce different gameplay. In fact people already do that. The wars of glory mod changes quite radically how the game gets played. Maybe you should try it out

i dont understand the apporach why a game should be balanced around the capabilities of mediocore players. you are always free to make 1k max lobbies or what ever (sry i dont want to assume anybodys rating or ingame capabilities:P). but why it should be balanced for people who doesnt even understand how to play flowing economy, or who are just playing inefficient and spamming t2 pds by default around mexes and not even reclaiming or that are on their endless eco scale trip (dont forget to build 100 e storage like a pro). to many matches lasts too long because nobody uses hard fighted advantages and instead going for "35 min t4 rush". you are always free to play like this but you cant complain about that you cant keep up like this.

@snoog said in Why would you have left FAF?:

There is no solution other than funding magically appearing and being able to hire an actual workforce.

Is the whole problem a lack of money? Let's hypothetically say visionik appears and provides additional money. And who will manage this money? If it is fxcommando, then we will have a new super-duper rating system, ultra-mega balanced matchmaking and will hold several more tournaments, but this will not increase the popularity of FAF in any way since for the majority of the audience e-sports in FAF is not interesting.
I assume that in the report to shareholders FXcommando will write that stable online in FAF is his achievement as a person developing the FAF brand, without saying that in fact this is an achievement of streamers.
And what will money give in such cases?

@broker said in Why would you have left FAF?:

@blackyps I suggested making two sets. for different players. In my proposal, labor costs are minimal. I understand it.

And so the game will remain a game of nerds. it's a pity.
although nothing prevents you from doing an experiment.
except for the desire and fear that now no one will play with nerds if there is an alternative)))

Son, these are the faf forums. You are, in fact, a nerd.

Imagine unironically using 'nerd' as a slur. In 2023. On a forum dedicated to a 15 year old RTS video game.

Made me feel a pang of nostalgia for high school, ngl.

@conny_action because there are more of them.
and it is this approach that gives most people pleasure.

Ngl, it always baffles me how some people want to cater to dudes who can't even play the game to half it's potential...

If you want to play with a beer in ur hand play survival or coop? I don’t get it.

Just reads like you’re personally mad you aren’t beating people while playing chill (when your variant of chill is actually more complicated games for faf) on maps built to be reductive to said gameplay.

Honestly feel like you would be complaining about nerds beating you in tank battles too since your chill tactics won’t work, or you get beaten before your 50k mass army exists.

if you want tank maps, play tank maps, lol

@ftxcommando that's why your audience isn't growing. That's your business. good bye.

@Broker I think you might want to go check out one of those Autobattler games, or an afk clicker game. Seems more your speed.

@Sheeo we need your opinion

@Ze_PilOt what do u think about this bro

Legit

@broker
Honestly, I think the basic problem is that, whatever game you design, the most competitive players will win it.
I've seen this so many times. From streetfighter to starcraft to 4x games to niche strategy titles lilke battlezone or, yes, Supreme commander.
At the end of the day, no matter what game people develop, the 'nerdiest', '"tryhard" players get the wins.
The only solution as a player is just to try harder and learn.
For a developer, it might seem like they could design a game that caters to more 'casual' players, but such a thing just doesn't exist - no matter how much designers 'simplify' a game, the most 'tryhard' players scoop up all the wins.

For example, games like 'zero k' are actually designed to ensure that the engine does all the hard work - the units in that game literally not only maintain max firing range, but micro their own dodging from incoming enemy attacks!
The result is always the same though - the combination of harder-trying, more experienced, and naturally more able/competitive players get all the wins.

Put another way -

1. if the developer codes something that gives an advantage to players that do NOT micro their units, then top players will figure out exactly how long this window is, and play around it.
2. If the game rewards players with economic advantage for NOT gaining economy, then top players will figure out how close to the line to ride.
3. If the developer programs a 'beer chug' mechanic, that allows a player a 20-second 'beer chugging' advantage every 3 minutes, then top players will learn to hold back every 180 seconds to benefit.

End of the day, ALL games will always be dominated by the least 'casual', most competitive, players.

I think the best a 'casual' player, who intends to just relax and 'have fun' (whatever measure of 'fun' they choose to use), can do, is pick a game with matchmaking (generally, the more popular the better for matchmaking reasons), then play it at their favoured level, and be happy with their 50% win ratio.

Despite a relatively small community, FaF is large enough to reward a very roughly 50% win rate for whatever level of play.

Of course, extremely skilled players making "smurf" accounts COMPLETELY break this (which is why I hate smurfing in all its forms). (low-level Starcraft and league of legends, among many other games, got kinda ruined when great players were allowed to make new accounts for free, for this reason. Basically these 'masters playing bronze' players are good players intentionally breaking matchmaking algorithms in order to beat up on new players. Sadly, people still like and subscribe to every 'bronze to masters' video series that gets released.)
Luckily, FaF requires a paid account for every auto-matchmaking player, while still being small enough to discourage 'pro' gamers from spending pennies to feed their victory streams for views.
Ergo, FaF is very resistant to great players smurfing, and their tendency to ruin matchmaking.

So, long story short, just play casual games on matchmaking, and enjoy the mathematically-guided 50% win rate.